I FULLY agree with Iain Macwhirter that the ignorant and illiterate cybernats do terrible damage to the cause which I have followed for more than half a century, and to the party to which I have belonged for most of that time ("Cybernats playing into the hands of Labour", The Herald, December 16).

Unhappily there is no real way to control such people but they should be vehemently disowned.

There is no need for a Yesser to be vituperative about Jim Murphy: he can achieve that perfectly well himself. Calling him a traitor is not relevant in a Scottish context, but his volte face on Clause 4 will find the accusation rings true among his Blairite friends. Doubtless he will soon be telling us how he has always opposed Trident and would not have supported the Iraq war had it not been for the party whip.

His veracity may be judged by his statement in an interview on STV the other night when he stated he did not know the size of membership of the Scottish Labour Party. This, from a commensurate politician who had just been elected by that very constituency, may enable the general electorate to determine whether he was dissembling or is merely incompetent.

KM Campbell,

Bank House, Doune.

IAIN Macwhirter rightly condemns the virulent language used by some on social media to attack Jim Murphy. Most sensible people are aware that there are idiots in all political parties and they infest the outer reaches of the internet and Twittersphere , but the vast majority should not be tainted by these few .

It is all together more worrying when the Daily Politics show on the BBC (December12 ) broadcast the journalist James Kirkup saying: "Why doesn't he just die?" when giving his reaction to Alex Salmond's decision to stand as an MP in the next election.

Had this comment been made about Mr Murphy or David Cameron on Twitter or on the internet it would have, rightly, caused outrage, but it passed without comment on the BBC .

Do different rules apply when venom is heaped upon Alex Salmond ? Judging by the opprobrium he attracted during the referendum, one has to answer "Yes".

James Mills

29 Armour Square ,

Johnstone.

THERE is now near universal recognition that the Labour Party in Scotland has a serious amount of work to do if it wishes to address the decline in the Party's fortunes in the run-up to the 2015 General Election. The recent leadership election highlighted quite how far Scottish Labour has drifted from its core political concerns in Scotland. Johann Lamont's "branch office" observation clearly struck a chord with many.

In his first major speech as the new leader, Jim Murphy has promised that he will address matters of this nature by overseeing a major constitutional change to ensure complete autonomy for the Labour Party in Scotland ("Murphy: I want to rewrite Clause 4 for Scots", The Herald, December 15). It must surely be a matter of concern that the growing tensions between the Scottish and UK parties in recent years have followed on from the last major structural review of the party in Scotland. This was carried out in 2011, following the party's disastrous showing in the Holyrood elections and it was this review that led to the formalisation of arrangements which, in turn, have given rise to the "branch office" status of the party in Scotland.

The review's principal authors were Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack.

In presenting that review in 2011, Jim Murphy stated: "From now on, whatever is devolved to the Scottish Parliament will be devolved to the Scottish Labour Party" - not too different from the sentiments in his latest speech.

If Mr Murphy is believed to be the answer to the Labour Party's ills in Scotland, it would seem to suggest that the wrong questions were being asked.

Andy Crichton,

4 McIntosh Parade, Kirkcaldy.

JIM Murphy's speech contained some interesting ideas. It would appear that Scottish Labour will now be completely separate from UK Labour, with different policies.

How exactly will that work? Will Scottish Labour MPs answer to Mr Murphy or to Ed Miliband? If UK and Scottish Labour have different policies on an issue how will Scottish MPs vote? If Mr Miliband becomes Prime Minister and seeks to enact a policy detrimental to Scotland will Scottish Labour MPs have a three-line whip to vote against it?

Will this new party have to register and develop their own source of funding, back-room staff, membership lists and so on?

There is any number of questions requiring answers before anyone can begin to believe this is more than simply a soundbite aimed at quietening down the troublemakers among Scottish members.

The next few months will be interesting.

Ann Ballinger,

Glen Sannox Drive,

Cumbernauld.

DAVID Torrance risks being unfair to Oasis manager Alan McGee of Creation Records ("Murphy should take year put to flesh out his Labour vision", The Herald, December 15)/ My recollection is that his break with New Labour followed Gordon Brown's welching on the New Deal commitments for musicians given explicitly by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson during "Cool Britannia" in an attempt to woo the youth vote.

I was at the gates of Downing Street when McGee and Noel Gallagher emerged to brief the small crowd that had assembled there on the concessions they had extracted before they drove off up Whitehall in a very cool brown Roller. A few minutes later Gordon Brown was driven in a green Jag through the gates of Downing Street - he hadn't been invited to the party which was organised for Mr Blair by Peter Mandelson - and a few months later that New Deal appeared to be off and sanctions were back on.

Dour Presbyterianism and "boot-camp"' mentality on welfare, imported from Wisconsin, promptly displaced the more visionary approach to basic income that McGee and the other creative industry people had advocated.

Roll forward 15 years to this year's Scottish referendum and the bedroom tax campaign, and the impact that such measures have on the creative sector in particular - and I for one regret that visionary policies were rejected.

Neil Robertson,

4 Glamis Terrace, Dundee.